ArticleCommunications biology2025
Human response times are governed by dual anticipatory processes with distinct neural signatures.
Article in Communications biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Flexible photonic contactless human-machine interface based on visible-blind near-infrared organic photodetectors.National science review · 2025Article
- Predictive encoding of auditory sequences in the human prefrontal cortex.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Human behavior is strongly influenced by anticipation, but the underlying neural mechanisms are poorly understood. We obtained intracranial electrocephalography (iEEG) measurements in neurosurgical patients as they performed a simple sensory-motor task with variable (short or long) foreperiod delays that affected anticipation of the cue to respond. Participants showed two forms of anticipatory response biases, distinguished by more premature false alarms (FAs) or faster response times (RTs) on long-delay trials. These biases had distinct neural signatures in prestimulus neural activity modulations that were distributed and intermixed across the brain: the FA bias was most evident in preparatory motor activity immediately prior to response-cue presentation, whereas the RT bias was most evident in visuospatial activity at the beginning of the foreperiod. These results suggest that human anticipatory behavior emerges from a combination of motor-preparatory and attention-like modulations of neural activity, implemented by anatomically widespread and intermixed, but functionally identifiable, brain networks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.